Sorry, I will not. Jolla chose it their tag, I will use it as I see fit.

Originally Posted by bluefoot

2) How can it possibly ever hope to be a sustainable model if Jolla don't take a cut? I'd be very worried if they didn't take a cut. It'd pretty much be signalling that they don't expect active Sailfish users or app development to grow at any time in the forseeable future, and therefore any revenue from it would be useless; a tacit admission of defeat. Most developers who might be willing to test the waters would see it as a very bad sign. Besides, what reason would Jolla ever have to help, facilitate or support Sailfish ports to Android phones if they're never going to make a cent from it?

Well, I hope they will grow a substainable model by managing to license their stack to interested parties, and producing hardware people buy. I would rather want them to invest in open source foundations for the missing infrastructure, rather than try to follow the lead of Apple and Google here.

I do not see apps revenue could possibly cover the cost of developing the infrastructure for that; and if money is the motivation for developing an application for SailfishOS, the developer will be sorely disappointed as for the return of investment. I wrote a few applications, for my own use and satisfaction; it still is a pain to get them released, as many needed components are forbidden. That is where Jolla should focus, to remove roadblocks from the current willing community of developers. For those, the donation system could be a source of satisfaction, rather than of steady income.

Originally Posted by bluefoot

3) Implementing Flattr support (or similar systems) is insanely easy. Like some of the other features on the roadmap, how did this not happen sooner?

I suppose that some commercial understanding was needed? Also, there were probably more urgent tasks. There still are...

Speaking of, being open source has been, and is on our plans for 2017. I canít assure you when you shall expect it but we are planning to do it little by little and make a proper road to fully open source ASAP. Iím not in charge of this but Iím following the discussion as closely as I can and I will share more info when I have some. Cheers to a finely planned road-to-open-source in 2017!"

If an originally closed source system goes into open is usually a sign of weakness. Not that this is inherently bad, but can mean that the company/team is desperately trying to find a solution, they are giving up original strategies. Just as examples:

I see it as an attempt to appease the most militant community members shouting their "Open it! Open it!" mantra till their throats got sore, as if opening it would actually make any real difference. (I agree that yielding to a pressure like that is a sign of weakness in its own right.)

I personally foresee very little effect. The majority of Sailfish has been open since day one. Has either Sailfish or Jolla benefited from or suffered because of that? I admit I do not have the numbers to hand but I suspect the real (that is, not just perceived) effect, good or bad, has been quite minimal.

__________________In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post

I see it as an attempt to appease the most militant community members shouting their "Open it! Open it!" mantra till their throats got sore, as if opening it would actually make any real difference. (I agree that yielding to a pressure like that is a sign of weakness in its own right.)

I personally foresee very little effect. The majority of Sailfish has been open since day one.

Indeed, SFOS is open enough for my tastes and needs. Mostly the closed stuff is in the UI layer which is pretty irrelevant IMHO.
As for opening the closed core apps which some people yearn for (like email and calendar) I don't really see any need for that either.

Consider that the sailfih browser is all open now, has anybody here made any relevant contributions to it, hmm?
Thought so.

If an originally closed source system goes into open is usually a sign of weakness...

Speculation, but perhaps it has more to do with the change in their business model?

They're no longer emphasising the pitch to consumers, or the phone companies that supply them, but rather aiming to supply nations with a strategic interest in not being under the ambit of the American tech giants.

I guess that could reduce the fear of being undercut by (probably Chinese) clones, and move their focus towards creating a transparent and reliable common core - Sailfish properly so called - perhaps with custom (closed source?) layers on top for different markets...

Speculation, but perhaps it has more to do with the change in their business model?

They're no longer emphasising the pitch to consumers, or the phone companies that supply them, but rather aiming to supply nations with a strategic interest in not being under the ambit of the American tech giants.

I guess that could reduce the fear of being undercut by (probably Chinese) clones, and move their focus towards creating a transparent and reliable common core - Sailfish properly so called - perhaps with custom (closed source?) layers on top for different markets...

And it could help to alleviate fears of any compromised code considering the ties with the Russian government.